al and sovereign right, entered into a compact, (not with a government, but) with each other, to produce a Government. And this is the only mode, in which Governments have a right to arise, and the only principles on which they ought to exist; or possibly can exist agreeably to natural justice.

44

It is a self-evident fact, that the PEOPLE are the original and only true and proper source from whom a government can be deduced, and spring into existence, on just and equitable principles, agreeable to the law of nature,' because the people existed before any government came to exist. Of course society, on social principles, have a right to three things.

First. To form their own government.

Secondly. To choose their own rulers.

And thirdly. To cashier them for miscondret. Hence it follows, first, that the authority of ru lers is only delegated authority. Secondly, that they are accountable to the fountain from whom they derived it.-And thirdly, that they are not to serve themselves, but society, whose servants they are, and by whom they are employed and paid for their services.

OF MORAL RIGHTS.

Moral rights' are the personal privilege to think, and judge, and act for one's self in point of moral duty. This is the more plain and clear, as no one is concerned but God the judge, and the individual man, as a responsible agent.

For what right hath any one to meddle with that which does not concern him?

Moral Duties are the result of Moral Law, which is the Divine prerogative alone; and man hath no right to invade the moral duty of another -for this is the right of the Divine Government. No man, therefore, nor set of men, have a right

to infringe upon or bind the conscience of another. Man therefore, as a rational creature, must be convinced before he can be converted, in order to act consistently, as an agent accountable to the Supreme Governor of the Universe. Consequently, submission of will to a compulsatory power, in matters of religion, in repugnance to the dictates of tender conscience, is nothing but an empty show, a piece of hypocrisy, without any mixture of moral goodness or genuine virtue.

All National Religious Establishments, or Churches established by Law,' have been a curse to mankind, and a pest to society. Vice and corruption in religion are encouraged and upheld and virtue lies deprest. If a man from a principle of duty would support religion voluntarily, by being compelled to do it, he is prevented the opportunity of shewing the virtue of his heart, and the influence of his example is lost. If his Religion be different from that established by law,' his conscience is bound and he is prevented from supporting his own religion by taking away from him that which he would give to his own Minister for the support of those in whom he does not believe. LAW-RELIGION, will cause people to be Hypocrites, but cannot cure them of error. man must be convinced in his Judgment, by evidence to his understanding, before he is converted in his heart. Of course, to form articles of faith, for people to subscribe under severe penalties, is not founded upon common sense, nor on equitable principles. For it supposes people capable of believing without reason or evidence, is eontrary to the Law of Nature,' and repugnant to natural justice, in as much as all men are freeand independent, in their individual capacity, and of course their rights and privileges are equal to think and to judge, and also to act for themselves,

A

in point of Moral Duty, and in all matters of opinion in Religion.

Suppose that one man believes in one God, another believes in ten, what is that to the first? It neither picks his pocket nor breaks his leg,' of course why should he persecute him? Persecution is contrary to Natural Justice, in as much as it assumes a power which no mortal can claim, it being the Divine right only, to judge in such cases. But nevertheless moral duty from pity, and a concern for his welfare, may excite a man to strive to convince another for his good, to shun the error and find the happy road.

A

Universal right of Conscience, is given by the Author of Nature, who is the Moral Governor of the Human Family. And such liberty of conscience ought to be ESTABLISHED IN EVERY

LAND.

Intolerance assumes to itself the right of withholding liberty of conscience. Toleration' assumes the right of granting it. Both are despotisms in their nature. Man worships not himself but his Maker; and liberty of conscience which he claims, is not for the service of himself but of his God. In this case, therefore, we must necessarily, have the associated ideas of two beings; the mortal who renders the worship, and the Immortal Being who is worshipped.

• Toleration,' therefore, places itself not between man and man, nor between church and church, nor between one denomination of religion and another, but between God and Man: between the being who worships, and the BEING who is worshipped; and by the same act of assumed authority, by which it tolerates' man to pay his worship, it presumptuously and blasphemously sets itself up, to tolerate' the Almighty to reseive it.

Suppose a bill was brought into any Legisla

ture, entitled an Act to tolerate or grant liberty to the Almighty, to receive the worship of a Jew or a Turk, or to prohibit the Almighty to rereceive it,' all men would startle and call it blasphemy. There would be an uproar. The presumption of toleration' in religious matters would then present itself unmasked. But the presumption is not the less, because the name of Man' only appears to those laws; for the associated ideas of the worshipper and the worshipped cannot be separated. Well may one exclaim- Who then art thou vain dust and ashes-by whatever name thou art called, whether an Emperor or a King, a Bishop or a State, or any thing else, that obtrudest thine insignificance, between the soul of MAN and its MAKER? Mind thine own concerns. If he believes not as thou believest, it is a proof that thou believest not as he believeth, and there is no earthly power can determine between you."

With respect to what are called denominations. of religion, if every one is left to judge of his own religion, there is no such a thing as a religion that is wrong. But if they are to judge of each other's Religion, there is no such a thing as a Religion that is right, and therefore all the world is right or all the world is wrong. But with respect to religion itself, without any regard to names, and as directed from the Universal Family of mankind to the divine object of all adoration-it is Man bringing to his MAKER the fruits of his heart, and the grateful tribute of every one is accepted," Like as a Father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him." HE looketh at the heart, and judgeth according to intentions, of a truth is no respecter of persons, but in every nation, he that feareth God and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.' required of a man according to what is given him, whether one, two, or five talents,' and he that

It is

knoweth his master's will, and doeth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes'-for where there is no law, there is no transgression' sin is the transgression of the law." MAN is under a Moral Law the Law of the Mind of right and wrong. There is a moral duty-and a moral. obligation on the man to perform that duty. If he does not perform it he falls under condemnation; which he is conscious of, for not acting as well as he knew how:-hence the propriety of the words, This is the condemnation, that light has come into the world, and men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil.' Man is a rational agent, actuated by motives; his actions are deliberate, and his motives of two kinds, Good and Evil-One is called moral good,' the good principle existing in the mindthe other is called moral evil,' because the spirit of the mind is bad, and the intention of the mind is to do wrong, which motive is not right, not agreeable to natural justice and moral obligation. Because as all men have equal rights and wants, so their duties and obligations are equal in their social capacity, as established in the Law of Nature, by the Creator and Governor of the World-of course there is need for a definite rule by which to measure our duties towards each other; because if our rights and obligations are the same and equal, then we are to expect no more than we can justly claim, or would be witling to bestow, agreeable to that which is just and equal, and hence the command which is agreeable to the Law of Nature' Love thy neighbour as thyself, which is always agreeable to the Moral Law,' and corresponds with the rule, as ye would that others should do to you, do ye even so to them'-for this is the LAW and the PROPHETS'-or what the Law of Moses and the Prophets and Jesus Christ taught, which ought there